masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:SlayerEGO1342
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Talk:Earth page. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- SpartHawg948 (Talk) 23:57, July 8, 2010 SpartHawg948, help me!!! I've looked at several pages and talk pages and I can't find anything that mentions the inconsistency in the Mass Effect 2 Codex entry for the Battle of the Citadel. So I don't know if anyone's noticed that or I just can't find it. I figured you'd know where it is... so can you help me out? :Two things. 1) Appeals for my help generally get my attention faster when left on my talk page. It's a fluke that I saw this one as quickly as I did. 2) In order to help, I need a grasp of the situation. What "inconsistency in the Mass Effect 2 Codex entry for the Battle of the Citadel" are you referring to? SpartHawg948 23:35, July 13, 2010 (UTC) ::I think he was refering to the discussion on the Talk:Codex/Citadel and Galactic Government page when I discovered an inconsistency in the Paragon Entry. That's my guess. Lancer1289 23:38, July 13, 2010 (UTC) My talk page was looking bare so I decided to spruce it up with a utilitarian post. Anyway... The ME2 Codex entry says that the Destiny Ascension was INSIDE the Citadel Arms with Sovereign, and that the Arcturus Fleet saved it from Sovereign when the arms opened. SlayerEGO1342 23:39, July 13, 2010 (UTC) :I don't see any inconsistency. I assume that the line that is the issue is "In the battle that followed, the Destiny Ascension dreadnought evacuated the Citadel Council, but ordered the wards' arms closed, sealing them and the geth inside an impregnable shell, cutting off any reinforcements or escape.", with them being the word in contention. However, it seems obvious to me that them refers to the wards. After all, they ordered the wards' arms closed, sealing them (the wards) in with Sovereign. And then, when the ward arms opened, the Fifth Fleet was able to attack Sovereign. At least, that's how I read it. If it's actually something else that is the issue, please let me know. SpartHawg948 23:44, July 13, 2010 (UTC) :"Them" can't refer to the Wards because the impregnable shell is the Wards. SlayerEGO1342 23:47, July 13, 2010 (UTC) ::No... it isn't. The impregnable shell is the outside, and the wards are the inside. They're on opposite sides of the same arm, but they are not one and the same. SpartHawg948 23:49, July 13, 2010 (UTC) :::Just to back that up, the shell refers to the Citadel's hull, not the wards themselves. The wards are again inside the hull, not a part of it. The Wards may be built into them, but they aren't the same thing. Lancer1289 23:50, July 13, 2010 (UTC) :::Why would BioWare bother mentioning that the Wards are sealed inside, "cutting off reinforcements or escape"? Why would the Geth need to escape, or need reinforcements inside the Citadel? The only thing that would need those is the Destiny Ascension. SlayerEGO1342 23:54, July 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::Well, at the end of ME, we see the DA (outside of the citadel) being shot up by the geth fleet, so clearly there's -some- inconsistency in the codex entry. The fleet can't be both shooting up the DA outside of the citadel, while being sealed inside of it. I guess you could say "well only a portion of the fleet got sealed inside", but that still makes the codex entry confusingly worded at best. I also happen to agree that "them" seems to be referring to the council on the destiny ascension, not the wards. Dammej 23:56, July 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::: (edit conflict) They wouldn't. If 'them' refers to the wards, it'd be the wards (and the C-Sec forces battling the geth, as well as the civilians) who would be cut off from escape (civilians) or reinforcement (C-Sec). SpartHawg948 23:57, July 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::::(Edit conflict x2)Reinforcements and escape probly refers to reinforcements for C-Sec and the various forces fighting the geth inside the Citadel. Likewise escape, probably refers to the citizens of the Citadel, trying to escape from the attack. It is pretty obvious from ME that the Ascension was outside the arms, not inside. Lancer1289 23:59, July 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::::The rest of the sentence talks about the'' Ascension'' as the main subject of the sentence, so switching at the end to talk about the Wards just doesn't seem feasible. SlayerEGO1342 00:00, July 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::No, the first part of the sentence talks about the Ascension (remember, no italics, as none are used in-game), but the second part switches to the Wards. Perfectly feasible. Much more so than assuming BioWare got so much of the continuity right, but flubbed this one glaringly obvious bit. SpartHawg948 00:06, July 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::The name of this ship doesn't get italics? If none were used in-game, that seems like more of a grammatical fault on the developers' behalf than intentionality. It just doesn't sit right. Grammatically, "them" should refer to the Council or the ship, not the Wards. SlayerEGO1342 00:09, July 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::No, it's one of the norms of the ME galaxy. No italics for ship names, alien race names don't get capitalized (i.e. 'geth', not 'Geth')e. If it's a fault, it's one they've made in two games now. And again, 'them' referring to the Wards makes perfect grammatical sense. You asked for my opinion, I'm giving it. SpartHawg948 00:12, July 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::::(edit conflict)Or maybe the lack of italics is the way BioWare wanted that. Its BioWare's game and their universe, they can do anything they want with it. Them refers to the wards, and by extension, the people in them. From the srtucture of the sentence, it seems that BioWare was refering to C-Sec and the Citadel defenders, and the civilians trying to escape. Lancer1289 00:13, July 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Support for my argument: "The Normandy defended the Destiny Ascension as it fled, saving the lives of the Citadel Council." I don't recall the DA fleeing at all. I recall it standing its ground as the dreadnought that it is. This sentence would support my belief, as it would be fleeing the Citadel once the arms were opened. And, with all due respect, I didn't ask for your opinion; I asked for you to help me find where this inconsistency was discussed on this Wiki. SlayerEGO1342 00:15, July 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::Hm maybe the reason the Ascension wasn't fleeing was becuase its engines/main drives were out, as stated by the Commander of the Ascension during the battle. So that really isn;t support as it is contridicted in game. Lancer1289 00:19, July 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::If the Ascension wasn't fleeing because its drives were out, why would the Codex entry say it fled? In-game contradictions (more specifically, inconsistensies) are what I'm pointing out here. SlayerEGO1342 00:21, July 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::::(edit conflict) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrSZG28UJac&feature=related About 5:40 in. The Ascension is clearly moving away from the Citadel, and is much farther from it than she was when she started. Remember, they were evacuating the Council, not 'getting the Council onboard and then sitting tight in the middle of an enemy fleet'. Finally, you 'asked' "The ME2 Codex entry says that the Destiny Ascension was INSIDE the Citadel Arms with Sovereign, and that the Arcturus Fleet saved it from Sovereign when the arms opened.". Where in there did you ask me where you could find the place this inconsistency was discussed? Since you didn't actually ask for anything specific, I assumed my input was what was desired. SpartHawg948 00:22, July 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::::My VERY first post on this page. That's where. SlayerEGO1342 00:23, July 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::::No disrespect intended. SlayerEGO1342 00:24, July 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::(Edit conflict)Maybe because it was fleeing when its drives were disabled, and it was moving in inerta. Either way it was trying to get away. Lancer1289 00:24, July 14, 2010 (UTC) (edit conflicted four times)Because it was attempting to flee, fleeing unsuccessfully can still be technically counted as fleeing. Bastian964 00:25, July 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Fair enough. However, I overlooked this, or misread it, which is why I asked you to specify. You specified without mentioning anything about simply looking for a location. I admit that I apparently overlooked it, but that again is why I asked for clarification as to what you were asking, clarification where you failed to explain what you were asking. SpartHawg948 00:27, July 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::: ::::::Sorry for the confusion there; I was extremely vague. My apologies. ::::::However, I still believe that the Codex entry says the DA was trapped inside the closed Citadel with Sovereign and the Geth, then was saved by the Arcturus Fleet when Shepard opened the arms, allowing it to escape Sovereign's sights. SlayerEGO1342 00:29, July 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::And I still have to disagree. Apart from the fact that, were it to read that, there would be no logical way for the DA to escape (and this is the Paragon ending, where the DA does escape) destruction at the hands of Sovereign and the geth (again, BioWare specifies it is geth, not Geth), grammatically, 'them' seems to refer to the Wards, the last subject used before 'them'. SpartHawg948 00:31, July 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::Sorry for capitalizing geth, that was just a slip-up in keyboarding habit. But no, no, no, the last subject used before "them" isn't the Wards; it's the Ward Arms, which is why "them" cannot refer to anything but the Council/Destiny Ascension, as no other logical subject exists in the sentence. SlayerEGO1342 00:35, July 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::::You say so. It still seems painfully obvious to me that them is in reference to the wards (aka the ward arms) which appeared right before 'them', as opposed to the Citadel Council and the DA, which didn't. And it seems simply inconceivable to me that they would write a Codex entry that directly contradicts itself and flies in the face of logic. If your interpretation is correct, canonical inconsistency should be the least of your concerns. SpartHawg948 00:39, July 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I know, I should be more concerned about the Reaper threat. I don't remember where I read this (I think it's somewhere on thi Wiki), but something said that there was little communication between BioWare's codex writing staff (or the writing staff in general, i don't remember the exact wording) and some other department, and this led to quite a few in-game inconsistencies, one of which was, if memory serves, the Graybox release date. SlayerEGO1342 00:44, July 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::The only thing I can think of is on Talk:Alliance Navy, where a writer says, concerning the Alliance cruisers at the Citadel "Dirty Little Secrets time. The cruisers in the battle of the Citadel are using a model intended to be an Alliance dreadnought. The cinematics department didn't read the Codexes specifying that humanity only has six, and only uses them for long ranged combat. When we saw shots showing up to 15 "dreadnoughts" on screen at a time, we had to re-designate the model as a cruiser." But that only describes one incident, and would hardly explain a glaring discrepancy between what is seen in ME and how it is described in ME2, some time later. I don't think that lack of communication between departments could possibly explain this. ME2 came out over two years later, leaving little chance that there was a disconnect or lack of familiarity with the ending of ME. SpartHawg948 00:50, July 14, 2010 (UTC) Removal of Another User's Comments Yeah, removing other people's comments is kind of counter to site policy, and you kind of removed one of my comments in the "Interregnum" section on the "Talk:Timeline" page. No hard feelings, I just put my comment back and put your comment below mine, but please don't do this again, okay? Arbington 18:45, July 31, 2010 (UTC) Just wanted to point out also that Arbington is correct, removal or tampering with comments made by other users is a bannable offense. Please do not do this again. Lancer1289 18:52, July 31, 2010 (UTC) I didn't know I had removed your comment. I tried to add my own comment, got edit-conflicted, clicked back, copied my comment so I could hit forward and paste it without having to re-type it, then clicked "save page", and it didn't edit-conflict me again. I didn't think that was supposed to happen, but I didn't think anything of it until, well, now... So Lancer, I didn't remove anyone's comment. The site did. SlayerEGO1342 19:48, July 31, 2010 (UTC) :No, it had to be you. I've done the process you just described many, many times. Try to post, get edit conflicted, hit back, copied my comment, went to the latest version of the discussion page, and pasted my comment. Not once has this ever resulted in someone elses comment being removed. So unless the internet works differently for you, it appears that you inadvertently copied your comment over someone elses. Not saying that it's your fault, or 'do it again and you're banned!' or anything, just asking that you be a little more careful in the future. Well, that or find out why your internet is the only one that works that way! :P SpartHawg948 20:51, July 31, 2010 (UTC) :I couldn't have copied over someone's comment because they version of the page that I saved existed before the edit conflict, meaning before Arbington's comment ever appeared on my screen. I never went back to the latest version of the discussion page; I hit "save page" instead of "forward" from the pre-edit conflict page. SlayerEGO1342 20:56, July 31, 2010 (UTC) ::What's done is done. The point is, don't do this on purpose. As long as you remember that, things should all go well. Arbington 21:00, July 31, 2010 (UTC) :::In the future then, perhaps go to the latest version of the page before copy-pasting? Frankly, the way you describe it doesn't really make sense, as there would still be an edit conflict, but whatever. Stranger things have happened, I suppose. As Arbington says, what's done is done. So please just exercise a bit more caution in the future, and maybe when edit conflicts happen in the future, paste yours onto the latest version of the page just in case. SpartHawg948 21:03, July 31, 2010 (UTC) :::I understand that I shouldn't do that on purpose, and have always understood that. I'm feeling some hostility towards me from Arbington and Lancer which, from my perspective, is wholly inappropriate given that I've explained that I had no clue Arbington's comment was removed. You don't need to wag your fingers at me or remind me of the site policy. It was a fluke and it requires no reprimand whatsoever. SlayerEGO1342 21:09, July 31, 2010 (UTC) ::::No one is wagging fingers, although every (and I literally mean every) time that this happens, the person who (knowingly or otherwise) removed a comment is reminded of site policy. Don't believe me? Ask Lancer. He got a reminder about site policy once. And he got one of my reminders, which literally is a reprimand. The reminder Arbington left you, not so much. SpartHawg948 21:11, July 31, 2010 (UTC) :::::I apologise if I came off as hostile. I was actually trying to be quite the opposite, friendly yet stern. If only tone of voice were able to be heard over the internet... Arbington 21:14, July 31, 2010 (UTC) :::::I hear ya (figuratively). If I had a dollar for the amount of times I've been misunderstood because of inflectionless text, I'd have enough to buy my car the new headlight that it needs. SlayerEGO1342 21:16, July 31, 2010 (UTC) The arising Aristocracy and the emerging Underclass I would comment, but I have conceded. Know this, it has been made apparent that no matter what concerns that people bring up, that they will continue to be shot down. SpartHawg will never give up on Lance. Because that would be like admitting his own mistake, which, from what everyone has ascertained, he can never do. Therefore the only chance is that the Wikia staff gets fed up with it and does something. This chance seems nigh impossible though. There are multiple factual inaccuracies in the Wiki in regards to the ME canon and what not, but, ironically, that's going to be the least bothering factor for the Wikia staff. It must be mentioned too, of course, but the primary goal is to demonstrate how this sort of leadership we see here is detrimental to the "community", and scares away potential users who would otherwise have seen Wikia's commercials. What is most damning of all! Sparthawg actually dares (!) the vandal to hit other Wiki's on his Talk Page. Lance and SpartHawg's main advantage is, of course, their banhammer, but also the fact that the two of them are there all the time, while the "disenfranchised" come and go, and thus don't present a sizable force at any given time. Sparthawg seems like a smart guy, but it also seems like he may be too stubborn to take the matter into his own hands. -- Humans Vanish 21:13, May 5, 2011 (UTC) :I'm not one to defend the actions of the admins here; I don't like either of them at all. I have my own gripes about the - as you say, detrimental leadership - but I'm trying to stay impartial for right now. I'll take up this particular discussion later, though, because I hate having to jump back and forth between multiple conversations. SlayerEGO1342 21:18, May 5, 2011 (UTC) Moving another user's comments to accomodate your own Unless you are adding an addendum to one of your previous posts, it is regrettably unacceptable for you or any other user to add a comment in between already established comments, like mine (which you just supplanted). Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:31, May 5, 2011 (UTC) :I seem to recall this coming up somewhere before, and Spart said it was okay as long as the "offending" comment pertains to the discussion at hand, for sake of page consistency and clarity. SlayerEGO1342 22:33, May 5, 2011 (UTC) ::In that case, don't make it too much of a habit; I don't see those acts (despite being legal following all parameters) as fair. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:40, May 5, 2011 (UTC) :::I respect your feelings on it, but I'm not going to censor my actions based upon what you perceive as unfair. SlayerEGO1342 22:43, May 5, 2011 (UTC) Insulting other users Please refrain from insulting other users, as this is a violation of site policy. For example, accusing another editor of "trolling" is an insulting act. As such, we ask that you not do so. If you cannot comment without insulting other users, please don't comment at all. If, however, you can comment without such behavior, you are more than welcome to take part in discussions here. Thanks, SpartHawg948 07:09, August 28, 2011 (UTC) :Explain to me exactly how asking if someone is trolling is an insult. SlayerEGO1342 16:48, August 28, 2011 (UTC) ::You come out of nowhere, leave one comment that does nothing to further the discussion, and that appears intended to antagonize Lancer and to provoke an emotional response from him. Interestingly, this pretty much defines the word "trolling". So, despite the fact that multiple users in that thread questioned the datapad image, you chose to single out Lancer1289 for this comment: "Lancer, are you just trolling or do you genuinely believe that the datapad doesn't depict Harbinger?" Responding to another editor's opinion by asking if they are trolling is extremely insulting, as I'm sure you are well aware. So again, please refrain from such inflammatory and pointless comments. SpartHawg948 18:22, August 28, 2011 (UTC) :::Did you notice that I posted a second comment negating my direct address of Lancer? 18:30, August 28, 2011 (UTC) ::::It didn't really negate it though. Unless of course you were asking if everyone who expressed some doubt about the datapad was just trolling. The second comment negated the second part of your first comment, but the trolling bit was still there and seemingly unaddressed. If you want to negate it, remove it. SpartHawg948 18:40, August 28, 2011 (UTC) :::::I was asking if everyone was trolling or honestly believed it. 18:41, August 28, 2011 (UTC) :::::Also, I disagree that asking if someone is trolling is an insult. 18:58, August 28, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Gotcha. So you go from insulting one editor specifically if they are trolling to asking several editors if they are all trolling, despite the fact that most, if not all, had clearly explained their positions. And this is an improvement how? And you can disagree all you want, but it is pretty insulting. I imagine if someone had responded to one of your posts with "SlayerEGO1342, are you just trolling, or do you actually have something on-topic to say", you'd probably feel a bit differently. Oddly enough, it's not uncommon for the person on the giving end of the insult to feel it wasn't really an insult, but for the person on the receiving end to disagree. SpartHawg948 19:03, August 28, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Actually, no, I don't feel insulted. No where did I say that I wasn't trolling. Still, I disagree that being asked if trolling is an insult, and I will further conduct my actions on this basis, unless you have a way of convincing me that it is, indeed, insulting. Did Lancer1289, the one you claim to have been insulted, express to you that he was insulted? He's an administrator, and he might even be a big boy. He can fight his own battles, thank you, SpartHawg. If he felt insulted, I'd like him to tell me directly. Not you. SlayerEGO1342 19:09, August 28, 2011 (UTC) And I'd like it if Mass Effect 3 came out tomorrow. Strangely enough, just because I'd like it to happen, doesn't mean it's going to happen. Another editor informed me they were feeling harassed because, of late, pretty much every one of your comments seems intended solely to hector them. I said I'd look into it. So I am. And I'm telling you, flat-out, that your comment was inappropriate. It doesn't matter if you aren't convinced. You don't have to be convinced for site policy to apply. SpartHawg948 19:15, August 28, 2011 (UTC) :The only user I've been aware of "hectoring" is Lancer. And it does have to be an insult for site policy to apply. And I say that it is not, in fact, an insult. You have been on the internet before, haven't you? And, permit me to over-analyze my comment as you're so oft to do: who is to say that my comment didn't serve the purpose of expressing utter disbelief that there was any reasonable doubt of the identity of the datapad Reaper? That's relevant to the discussion at hand. SlayerEGO1342 19:22, August 28, 2011 (UTC) ::Again, it doesn't matter if you say it isn't an insult. If you wanted to express utter disbelief, you could easily have done so without asking one other editor specifically if they were trolling. You have engaged in conversation before, haven't you? SpartHawg948 19:25, August 28, 2011 (UTC) :::Yes, and whenever I ask another person if they're trolling or not, they don't feel insulted. In all honesty, I've never encountered anybody, in real life or on the internet, who felt insulted by that. That is, until you and Lancer. And, well, as per site policy, I can't say that Lancer felt insulted for sure, since I've seen neither proof nor devconfirmation of such a thing. SlayerEGO1342 19:28, August 28, 2011 (UTC) ::::Well here's proof. I was insulted by that, by your tone in general, and your directed comment against me. Lancer1289 21:15, August 28, 2011 (UTC) :::::Would it have made you feel better if I didn't leave the comment directed at you present? SlayerEGO1342 21:28, August 28, 2011 (UTC) Being fairly active in a very large internet forum myself, I have seen plenty of people who felt insulted when someone asked if they were trolling. Generally, it's the people who clearly aren't trolling, as Lancer clearly wasn't in this instance. Ditto for Commdor and AnotherRho, who would be caught in your amended version where, per your own words, "I was asking if everyone was trolling or honestly believed it." None of those editors were trolling, nor has any of them engaged in trolling at any time in their editing here. People can easily be insulted by things that the person making the statement doesn't find insulting. I seem to remember you growing quite agitated about some comments I made that I didn't find the least bit insulting. It's all about perception. Lancer clearly was insulted. Now, lest it appear I'm merely lecturing and being a jerk for the sake of lecturing and being a jerk, your last comment, if I'm reading it correctly (and I may or may not... it's been a long day) is a superb gesture on your part. Personally, I'd be fine with it staying up if Lancer is cool with it, as we could just call this thing resolved and move on, but if Lancer does want it removed, it would be awesome if you would do so, and as such, your offer is greatly appreciated. Thanks, SpartHawg948 07:37, August 29, 2011 (UTC) :In all seriousness, I meant that "superb gesture" to be venomous and condescending. I don't want to be given credit where credit isn't due. But, I'm willing to concede that your interpretation of it and your proposed course of action would resolve this issue, so it's up to Lancer now. SlayerEGO1342 15:29, August 29, 2011 (UTC) :And, Anonymous, I don't remember growing agitated at any comments you've made. SlayerEGO1342 15:35, August 29, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah, there was no anonymous editor there. It was me. Late night indent-error. And yeah, even in the light of day, I can't see anything venomous and condescending there, although the fact that this was your intent... shouldn't surprise me, but kinda does. I guess that's what I for for having faith in people, and in their ability to act like mature adults. SpartHawg948 19:21, August 29, 2011 (UTC) :::In my opinion, a mature adult doesn't get offended by a simple internet word. But, that's just me. And, are you calling me immature? SlayerEGO1342 19:50, August 29, 2011 (UTC) No. Your behavior, yes. But of course, it is possible to be mature while displaying immature behavior. And offering a retraction meant to be "venomous and condescending" is pretty immature. SpartHawg948 20:02, August 29, 2011 (UTC) ::::You got me there. SlayerEGO1342 20:03, August 29, 2011 (UTC) Singular They I'm going to point this out once, there is actually nothing wrong with using a form of "they" in the singular fashion. As it stands there is nothing grammatically incorrect with my version, but your's is grammatically incorrect. Havoc is correct in that it is tautology to use the same word, and especially the same name, more than once in the same sentence, as breaks up the flow of the sentence. As such, in this instance my version is actually more correct than your version because mine is acceptable when using those forms of the words in that context, and yours isn't acceptable under standard grammar rules. This is a case where I am correct in that I do know what I'm doing and you are incorrect, despite what you seem to believe. Because we cannot mention Shepard's gender, we have to use alternate ways of getting around that and "their" is an acceptable way. Using "Shepard" twice in the same sentence, is not. I do encourage you to drop this issue as this is an issue where, and here's a surprise to you, I actually know what I'm doing. This is not something you can win no matter how much you argue. Lancer1289 18:01, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :Because you can't mention Shepard's gender, you can't follow those standard grammar rules. It would make sense if you were talking about Legion, since Legion IS more than one person. But with Shepard, you're only talking about one person with a variable gender. Because of that, you can't use pronouns. SlayerEGO1342 18:05, September 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Actually, and I point out again, there is nothing grammatically incorrect with using a form of "they" as a gender neutral pronoun. Since we cannot use another version it is actually the best version we can have under the circumstances as any form of "him/her" is actually less grammatically correct and it breaks up the flow of a sentence. Legion is actually singular in terms of canon, also Legion is referred to, along with any Reaper is an it, not a they so the comparison isn't valid. Singular they is an acceptable gender-neutral pronoun when nothing else will do, and this is a case where nothing else will fit. Again this is an issue where I actually do know what I'm doing and I made sure I did before I wrote it. ::Trust me, if there was a way to word it better without using singular "they" or "him/her" (or any variation thereof), that'd be great and I'd be all for it. However, we can't as we have to avoid the gender card. So again, "they" is an acceptable gender-neutral pronoun and just for an example "One student failed their test", is more correct than "One student failed his/her test". And I like the fact you avoided the fact Havoc did point out that it is tautology to use the same name twice in the same sentence. It is correct the second time to use a pronoun and since we can't mention gender, and no other word will fit, we have to go with the more grammatically correct version and that is to use a singular "they". And since this is a possessive subject, "their" is the correct, and the best solution in this case. Lancer1289 18:14, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :::"One student failed the test" is the correct way to word it, so your comparison is invalid. The tautology still looks less awkward than what you propose. So how about this: "...for earning the Commander the Star of Terra." :::And just so you know, I didn't come looking for an argument today. I'm only trying to help the wiki. So take your arrogant attitude somewhere else, okay? SlayerEGO1342 18:21, September 6, 2011 (UTC) ::::"My arrogant attitude"? Really? The only reason I left my message was to inform you that I acutally did do the research and found that a singular "they" is more grammatically correct than repeating the name, what you want, or to use "him/her" (or any variation thereof), which is what was also proposed. So I thank you for the further insult you just threw my way. Weren't you given a warning about that? This isn't a case of being arrogant, this is a case where the facts are on my side and not yours, and that is something that you cannot seem to accept. I also don't think you can accept that I'm right and you are wrong, but that's just a theory I have. There is no need to inflame a calm discussion with insults and needlessly inflammatory comments. Can you go one conversation with me without using that language? Is it so hard for you to get involved in a conversation without inflaming it, being rude to people, or insulting others? ::::I'm also not making an argument, I'm pointing out facts, and that is what you are failing to see. My version, again actually more correct than anything presented thus far. Your new version doesn't fit into the context of the sentence and would further break the flow than anything else. My example above is the correct version when using a singular, gender-neutral pronoun, so it is a valid example. Again I do know what I'm doing in this case. ::::As for trying to help, while we do appreciate any help, people do have to realize that they are wrong sometimes especially when someone, anyone, has done the research on the subject. In addition, your history here seems to cast a lot of shadow on that statement. Or need I point out how many times you have dropped in on conversations only to inflame the situation, especially anything involving me? Again this is a fact and has the evidence to back it up. ::::This is again not an argument, but a case where I have done the research, looked up everything I could on the topic, and found the only solution that will work in this instance. I have the facts to back me up in saying the current version is the best we can do under the circumstances. This is a case of facts, not personal opinions and the facts support me in this instance and not either version you have presented, or any other. Lancer1289 18:41, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :::::You may not realize it, but you are speaking to me with a lot of haughty arrogance. My history shouldn't matter. I would welcome arrogance in response to my belligerence, but I wasn't being belligerent. As a site Administrator it is your place to respond to belligerence on a case-by-case basis. My publicized hatred of you is not supposed to have any influence on your conduct with me until I bring it up, or until I attack you. SlayerEGO1342 18:49, September 6, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Though I respect the MoS when editing articles, I'm going to have to agree with Slayer on this issue, as it makes much more grammatical sense than your version. Continuing with your version would be committing the fallacy of equivocation, or rather, the more general class of fallacies that it belongs to: an ambiguous fallacy. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:04, September 6, 2011 (UTC)